improving. The value of a rising standard of living parties? And why now, nearly a decade later, do
lies not just in the concrete difference it makes for we once again see widespread calls for restrictive,
how people live but in how advances in economic in some cases punitive, anti-immigrant legislation?
well-being and security shape the social, political,
and ultimately the moral character of our society. It would be foolish, of course, to suppose that
every twist in this 150 years of American attitudes
America’s history makes clear that we are able to toward immigrants resulted simply from the ebb
push forward the qualities that most of us value in and flow of economic prosperity and stagnation.
our society – tolerance, opportunity, our sense of But it would be absolute blindness to pretend that
fairness, the strength of our democratic institutions the underlying economics had nothing to do with
– primarily at times when most of our citizens are it. When we look also at other dimensions of
moving forward economically as well. Ever since American society – generosity to the poor, or
the Enlightenment of the eighteenth century, religious prejudice, or even the most basic elements
Western thinking has regarded each of these of our democratic institutions like who gets to vote
characteristics positively, and in explicitly moral – the same patterns appear again and again. And
terms. It is not hard to see that when people can the same is true in many other countries as well.
look ahead with confidence in their economic
prospects, and even what the future holds for The greatest economic challenge America now
their children, they are more likely to exhibit these faces is not simply to prevent a recession, or soften
values in their attitudes and their behavior. Even the downturn if one does occur, but to restore the
societies like ours that have already made great long-term relationship between economywide
advances in these very dimensions are more likely gains and improvement in incomes and living
to make still further progress when most people’s standards for the broad majority of the American
living standards improve. But when living people. Historically, America’s economy has
standards stagnate – worse yet, if they decline – succeeded in this dimension to a greater extent
most societies make little if any progress in any than just about anywhere else: when the economy
of these areas, and in all too many instances they has become more productive, most Americans
plainly retrogress. have benefitted. More recently, however, the
impressive advances in our economy’s productivity,
Perhaps because getting ahead economically has and hence in output growth, have not accrued to
always been so central to Americans’ conception the advantage of the majority of American workers
of themselves, the connection between improving and families. This situation differs sharply from
living standards (or the lack thereof) and the moral what America has experienced throughout most of
character of society has been especially evident in the nation’s past. The link between the economy’s
this country. One example that comes immediately aggregate growth and the increase in incomes and
to mind is the history of Americans’ attitudes living standards that it delivers to the great
toward immigrants – easily the most contentious majority of American citizens has been severed.
domestic political issue in today’s election
campaign: What accounted for the wave of anti- The reasons for this situation are many and varied:
immigrant violence that afflicted America in the rapidly evolving new technology that places a
1850s? Why did that violence largely disappear premium on the skills some workers bring to
after the Civil War? Why was there then, in the labor market while significantly reducing the
the1880s and 1890s, a new round of extremely demand for others; competition from the world’s
ugly anti-immigrate agitation? Why did that newly industrializing countries, especially China
movement then give way, after the turn of the and India, together with further technological
twentieth century, to a period in which the mood developments that are opening an ever broader
of the country swung toward welcoming – to use array of goods and services to international trade;
the vocabulary of the time, “Americanizing” – large corporate governance practices that increasingly
numbers of new immigrants? And why did that reserve historically extraordinary rewards for
more welcoming mode give way, in the 1920s, managers, as distinct from either owners or the
to what became the most restrictive, and also the workforce at large; the disproportionate share of
most discriminatory, immigration laws the United low-skilled workers in America’s immigration
States has ever seen? inflow (especially among illegal immigrants) –
to name just a few.
Why did that period of discrimination and
exclusion then give way, after World War II, to What will it take to restore an economy that
complete reform of immigration? Why did this delivers genuine economic growth to a clear
Above, Chicago,IL
new, more welcoming approach then generate a majority of Americans? Many of the answers are
2003, (Freezers)
backlash in the 1980s and early 1990s, with such well known. Our government’s chronic budget
manifestations as Proposition 187 in California deficits are sapping our ability to invest in new
Previous, Gurnee, IL
2003, (Fishing)
and the movement in states like Florida and Texas factories and up-to-date machinery that would
to deny certain public benefits even to legal make workers more productive. Our failing school
immigrants? Why did that resistance then give systems are not equipping our nation’s young
way, in the late 1990s, to a situation in which the people with the skills they need to compete in
one candidate who chose to run for president in what is now a global workplace. Our tax policies
2000 on an explicitly anti-immigrant platform are increasingly designed to preserve the positions
(Pat Buchanan) attracted so few votes in the of whoever has already done well (or whose
Republican primaries that he had to change parents or grandparents did well), rather than
89 / 96
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100